Evidence for God from Science

Interesting read.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/ ... nt-design/


I particularly found this to be kinda funny:

"The National Center for Science Education, which rejects intelligent design as thinly veiled creationism..."

I wonder if they realize intelligent design is not exclusive to a theistic worldview. Or that maybe science shouldn't reject things based on the philosophical implications, but instead should accept things based on the evidence.

It takes alot of guts to go against the entrenched Darwinist establishment, I really hope he wins . Darwinists are like a cult but sometimes all it takes is one courageous voice to start that paradigm shift to the truth.

I think he could have a case, but it really has nothing to do with ID. Based on the article, his religious beliefs and how hard he pushed them on the office were bothersome to others. Depending on the nature of the "complaints of harassment" that are referenced in the article, the case could go either way.

If anything, the only case they have is that he may have been fired for his religious beliefs, and how outwardly he expressed them. If he was given ample warning about not bothering others with his religion, he won't win. If they simply fired him immediately, he deserves compensation. Simple as that. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to express his religion, but if it becomes disruptive or divisive in the workplace, an employer certainly has the right to ask him to hold back or save it for another venue.

As far as ID, I don't see where he gets off saying that it was the cause of his firing. Clearly the problem according to NASA was that the project was closing and that he was being disruptive...He says something entirely different, but sort of related to his religious beliefs.

And for the record, I don't see how you seriously defend ID as science. The only people who believe it is science are those who support it overtly...no neutral source has ever supported it's place as a science. On the contrary, in every instance, neutral arbiters and the vast majority of scientists see ID as it is...a non-science founded only to eliminate evolution from science, and based only on lack of evidence for evolution, which it claims is evidence for ID...which is anti-science, for the record.

Ivellious wrote:I think he could have a case, but it really has nothing to do with ID. Based on the article, his religious beliefs and how hard he pushed them on the office were bothersome to others. Depending on the nature of the "complaints of harassment" that are referenced in the article, the case could go either way.

If anything, the only case they have is that he may have been fired for his religious beliefs, and how outwardly he expressed them. If he was given ample warning about not bothering others with his religion, he won't win. If they simply fired him immediately, he deserves compensation. Simple as that. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to express his religion, but if it becomes disruptive or divisive in the workplace, an employer certainly has the right to ask him to hold back or save it for another venue.

You can read a lot of the documents here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/coppedge-v-jpl It might be worth looking at them before coming to a conclusion or wishing for an outcome.

Mistake? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/co ... 57291.html

Coppedge has waived his right to trial by jury and has elected to try the case before Judge Hiroshige who will decide all matters of fact and law.

JPL is not part of Caltech but it managed by Caltech, so this may be irrelevant. But at Caltech http://hr.caltech.edu/policies/PM/pm14.pdf

Employees may terminate their employment at any time for any reason as may the Institute.

I don't necessarily wish for any outcome, but I don't think this is actually a big deal about ID/evolution, nor will it have any serious impact on ID as a movement if it goes his way. Likewise, there will be no real effect on ID if he loses. If from what I've read is true, he claims it is a religious expression issue, and the employer says it is a "not knowing when to stop talking because you're bugging people" problem.

I agree, waiving a jury trial is intriguing. You'd think you'd have an easier time swaying a group of people who are on average less knowledgeable about academia than a judge, who might be more inclined to side with an employer. Just my view.

Not sure if being managed by caltech means they abide by the same policy, but I think most workplaces have these sorts of rules in place. Again, it would seem the only way he could win is if he can demonstrate that he was picked out only for his religious expression and nothing else.

Ivellious wrote:I think he could have a case, but it really has nothing to do with ID. Based on the article, his religious beliefs and how hard he pushed them on the office were bothersome to others. Depending on the nature of the "complaints of harassment" that are referenced in the article, the case could go either way.

That's exactly the point; he never "pushed" anything. And anything he did certainly wasn't "religious".

thing i dont get is that how is it that ID is not scientific but evolution is? what is the definition of science?
Science= a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
my question is this how can evolution be a scientific certainty when by using the very definition of science it is clear that it is a belief and not science? it has never been observed nor has any experiments yielded any scientific proof that macro evolution even exists? scientists can't explain how life truly began they can only speculate and by speculating it is obvious that it is not based on what is called science. it can only be what they believe in or what they put faith in because it can't be studied, observed nor replicated. my issue is this im sure many of this guy's co workers addressed their beliefs on how things came to be seeing the nature of their work so why would him explaining his be disruptive? how is it right for others to hold their beliefs, express them as truth yet someone else is not entitled to that same right? i have nothing wrong with people holding to whatever beliefs they want i have a problem when people subject you to theirs but can't accept that you may not believe the same. we all have free will to choose what we will ultimately put our faith in and it is our decision to make alone i mean even God doesn't force anyone to believe in him nor force someone not to. my thoughts sorry if it may have strayed off a bit.

"Neutral Science" seems like a term of convenience. If you define "neutral science" as science that rejects the supernatural as a possibility, then of course all scientific inquiry that is open to the possibility of the supernatural will be non-neutral and slanted.

There are scientists who have written peer reviewed work on intelligent design being a possible explanation for the origin, complexity, and evolution of life. Again, a scientist who rejects the supernatural before considering possibilities about these topics would have to reject intelligent design before he is even presented with the idea.

As is so often the case, the problem is that philosophy and science are being blurred to the point where there is no distinction. That's a dangerous place to be.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Interesting read.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/ ... nt-design/


I particularly found this to be kinda funny:

"The National Center for Science Education, which rejects intelligent design as thinly veiled creationism..."

I wonder if they realize intelligent design is not exclusive to a theistic worldview. Or that maybe science shouldn't reject things based on the philosophical implications, but instead should accept things based on the evidence.

Marcus, I think you lost me here. How is intelligent design not exclusive to a theistic worldview? Intelligent design requires a designer, who logically, would have to be God, or some kind of god, correct?

And, as far as the article, I can see both sides pov. As far as the article says, each side has its own interpretation of what happened. It just depends on who makes their case more believable to whoever is judging the case.

RickD wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Interesting read.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/ ... nt-design/


I particularly found this to be kinda funny:

"The National Center for Science Education, which rejects intelligent design as thinly veiled creationism..."

I wonder if they realize intelligent design is not exclusive to a theistic worldview. Or that maybe science shouldn't reject things based on the philosophical implications, but instead should accept things based on the evidence.

Marcus, I think you lost me here. How is intelligent design not exclusive to a theistic worldview? Intelligent design requires a designer, who logically, would have to be God, or some kind of god, correct?

And, as far as the article, I can see both sides pov. As far as the article says, each side has its own interpretation of what happened. It just depends on who makes their case more believable to whoever is judging the case.

Directed panspermia?

I said it doesn't require "theistic" explanations, because deists and pantheists could also embrace intelligent design.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I said it doesn't require "theistic" explanations, because deists and pantheists could also embrace intelligent design.

I was thinking of Theism in its broader definition, in which deism and pantheism were included. But, now I can see that you're taking theism in its narrower definition. Here's what wikipedia says:Theism

So, in its narrower sense, deism and pantheism are not part of Theism. Me sees the difference.

Directed panspermia?

Direct panspermia is considered intelligent design? I thought it an alternative for those who refused to believe in an intelligent designer.

RickD: You've just discovered one of my biggest qualms with ID as a scientific theory...there isn't even a consensus on what it means. It's just a vague cover-all idea that fills in all the holes by saying "well, something else (God, aliens, etc.) did everything, so don't ask questions why or how, because that is important is that it did."

Some ID proponents do accept the idea of aliens or something non-supernatural being the "designer." Some do not. Again, it's like they feel they can have a theory, not explain any of it, and say it's a done deal. In science the "how" is one of the vital aspects of describing the world, and ID stops well short of being able to explore that question at all. That's why there are different interpretations of what ID is even among its supporters.

I kind of liken it to string theory, which is another vague concept that has zero consensus on how it would work. If you ask a dozen string theorists what string theory is, you'll get the same general concept, but delve into the specifics and everyone has their own interpretation of how string theory works, what kind of equations describe it, hw it fits into physics as a whole, etc.

Ivellious wrote:

Some ID proponents do accept the idea of aliens or something non-supernatural being the "designer." Some do not.

The problem I see with believing aliens or a non-supernatural being designed our universe, is that it still leads back to who created those aliens or non-supernatural being? It will always lead to that same question. Who created the first "whatever one believes"? It is only logical that it has to be an omniscient, omnipotent being that existed outside our universe. If I believe aliens designed life, then I would have to believe those aliens were either 1) outside our universe, and a by logic, creator(s) god(s). Or, 2) those designer aliens were created by a creator God.

Correct on that Ivellious, ID is open to people of many beliefs but its very hostile to atheists and materialists in general and that is why Darwinists are so emotionally against it

Rick ID doesnt explain to us who that creator is, all it tells us is that life had a designer, and that designer must have been very powerfull. As far as who the designer is that is left up to philosophers, theologians and logicians to argue, but ID does fit very well with Christianity. As far as who created the designer that isnt something that ID answers. Logically I like Peter Kreeft's analogy as to why there must be a first cause (God), and also WLC's Kalam cosmological argument.